Sabbeth Keepers

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Jito463

To be fair, it's so deeply rooted into our culture, it doesn't make much sense to change it to another day if we do indeed believe the specific day is irrelevant (which I do). It's not about the RCC in any way, shape or form, it's about our culture. You can argue that Sunday worship was effected by the RCC, but that doesn't mean we are following them just because we use the same day.

Cause and effect, brother, cause and effect. Not effect and cause.

Nonsense, there are plenty of Apostolics which have changed their day of worship to the Sabbath, so yes it does make sense to change something for the truth.

Otherwise why change baptism in the name of Jesus, after all the Trinitarian baptism is deeply rooted in our culture.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right, because if it does not matter which day, and no one is using sunday as a pagan day or due to the catholic church, it's a non-issue.

If it is such a non-issue, why did some Christians gave their lives rather than give up the Sabbath?

Apparently keeping the Sabbath matter deeply to many Christian martyrs.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

No law has been done away with. They have been fulfilled by Jesus, and now the LAW OF THE SPIRIT is the one that guides us. THAT is the elephant in the room that you are trying very hard to ignore.

I already showed that according to Paul the "law of the Spirit" is the "righteousness of the law" which is "fulfilled... in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit". Further you say no law was done away with yet later you say it was abolished, a clear contradiction (not to mention a plain denial of the very express command of Christ).

Neither is there a scripture that says "KEEP THE SABBATH HOLY AS UNTO THE LORD" anywhere found in the NT either... lol

You assume that there is no obligation on man except what is written in the new testament. From where did you get this idea? It certainly isn't found in the new testament. I keep pointing out the error of this reason to no avail but here it is again: if your reasoning is correct, then bestiality is morally acceptable, for there is no scripture IN THE NEW TESTAMENT which says "thou shalt not have carnal relations with a beast as with a human".

Furthermore, the new testament does not present the laws of God AS NEW LEGISLATION. They ASSUME the OLD TESTAMENT RECORDING of the LAWS OF GOD to be valid. Thus you will find in the new testament NO COMMAND FROM GOD to NOT MURDER, for example. The new testament condemns murder, for sure, but not because of new replacement legislation. Rather it affirms as valid the WORDS OF GOD forbidding murder with EXPLANATION AND APPLICATION of that commandment to include the thought life as well as the physical deed, as explained by YOUR TEACHER/RABBI/MASTER/LORD, Jesus Christ.

The law was fulfilled, completed, abolished, and CHANGED at Calvary.

Then NONE of the ten commandments are in force since then. At Calvary the law prohibiting idolatry was abolished. At Calvary the law commanding the honoring of one's parents was abolished. At Calvary the law prohibiting murder was abolished. At Calvary the law commanding the remembrance and sanctification of the sabbath was abolished. Now if a law is abolished, whatever that law prohibited is now allowed, and whatever that law commanded is no longer obligatory. Do you say idolatry and murder are still prohibited? On what basis? According to the New Testament, they are prohibited because GOD SAID SO. Where? Why, right there in Moses. The NT assumes the post-Calvary validity of the law of God as a definition of right and wrong behaviour, as a moral code, as the STANDARD and declaration of God's will for mankind. (This is so basic I am amazed it must be pointed out to a fellow Christian!)

Ephesians 2:15-16 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace, and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

The ten commandments, according to you, is "the enmity" that Christ came to do away with. Yet you seem utterly oblivious to what that REALLY and PLAINLY means! Thou shalt do no murder was "against us", so God got rid of it, right?

Not. The handwriting that was against us was NOT GOD'S LAW. See this I'm running out of time: http://yrm.org/handwriting-ordinances.htm

And here: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseact...esians-215.htm

Jesus not only fulfilled the law, but abolished it, and then was permanently CHANGED into a new man, so making PEACE.

This seems rather incoherent. As for Jesus fulfilling the law, absolutely. But does that mean "he kept it so I don't need to"? His statement that he was come to fulfill it was juxtaposed against "think not that I am come to destroy the law". Yet you have him fulfilling it by destroying it, destroying it by fulfilling it, etc. But HE put the two ideas as polar opposites and said ONE of them ain't happening.

I really do wonder why people fight so hard arguing for lawlessness. If you love God, and God said "remember the sabbath DAY because I am the Creator and made the Sabbath for you", then how could anyone NOT call his sabbath a delight and his ways good and desirable?

I've never understood the antinomian mindset when it is found among Christians.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

If it is such a non-issue, why did some Christians gave their lives rather than give up the Sabbath?

Apparently keeping the Sabbath matter deeply to many Christian martyrs.

That's not proof. People give their lives for anything nowadays, and whenever.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i heartily disagree that any of your refs dismiss the Sabbath, Mr Blume--one should def be fully persuaded in their own mind, and one should not be put to death for ignoring the Sabbath, agreed. But, the Sabbath is no more?

Simple context. Galatians 3 stated that law was a schoolmaster for Israelites before Christ. Once Christ came, schoolmaster is out of a job. Notice the YOU and US pronouns in the context. "YOU" spoke of gentile believers. "US" spoke of Paul and the rest of the Christians who were Jewish. And when we enter chapter 4, the context doesn't change. In fact it is elaborated. The Jews were like heirs of greatness while gentiles were servants under idols. But while Jews were under the schoolmaster, they were like servants since they were in bondage under Law. But when Christ came, they graduated, so to speak, and came into their inheritance. The gentiles who got saved left their bondage of idolatry and became children right along with the Jews who graduated.

But then Paul said the gentiles who came out from under one form of bondage to idols came under another form of bondage to Israel's schoolmaster that Israel was not even supposed to be under any longer -- LAW. IN THAT CONTEXT of gentiles going under elementary law issues, Paul said they were keeping DAYS. SABBATH is one such day that is KEPT. People KEEP SABBATH DAY when they believe it is necessary.

How could anyone miss that context and throw in pagan days when context never changed from schoolmastery of law?

Col 2 says that no one should let another judge them in respect of sabbath days. It named the day right out! And it said that sabbaths were a shadow. And the body that cast the shadow is Christ. Are we in the days of shadows still?

I'm curious your--or anyone's--opinion of the Sabbath-keeping in the New Jerusalem? And, i wonder where i read this? The Revelation, i was sure...

We're in the new jeursalem sionce iti's the church.

Heb 12:22

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

"for the son of man is lord even of the sabbath"

Jesus was made under the law and before the cross He abode under it. That was before the cross. Carnal ordinances were before the cross and removed by the cross.

"and pray ye that your flight may not be in winter, nor on a sabbath"

A sabbath allowed only for a sabbath day's journey and the city oif locked up allowing none out on the sabbath day in the first century.

"The sabbath for man was made..." (not man for the Sabbath)

Yeah, when it was in effect.

these are all red-letter. Who of you can truly say the Sabbath is no more? There was a time, at least, when i might have loved to have my Saturdays back but you are sure braver than me

"After the Sabbath ends, each of you should set aside and save something from your surplus in proportion to what you have..."

because doing this on the Sabbath would be violating the Sabbath, perhaps?

That is law. No where did the Lord and apostles instruct the church to keep sabbath.. Col 2 even stated that the cross nailed the law away from us. Gentiles saw the middle all of partition of LAW removed to join Israel and serve God without Law keeping.

Romans 14 says those who regard a day are weak in faith. That's sabbaths and other holy days.

[Aquila]

The Law is composed of the moral law of God (the Ten Commandments), and the law of Moses (civil and ceremonial laws given specifically to Israel). The Bible, while using terms interchangibly, actually draws distinction between the two.

For example... the law of Moses was placed in the side of the ark:

DEUT. 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

The law of God was placed down in side the ark:

EXO. 40:20 And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves on the ark, and put the mercy seat above upon the ark:

The law of Moses, with its ordinances, wAS abolished, being nailed to the cross:

EPH. 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.

However, the law of God abides forever...

LUKE 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

So, all the civil and ceremonial laws of Israel are indeed abolished. However, the moral law of God (the Ten Commandments) remain.

However, the Ten Commandments remain for a purpose... to condemn sin and sinners, causing all men to realize their need for a Savior:

Romans 77:77
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

While the moral law of God remains to condemn sinners and the wicked, Jesus fulfilled the law on behalf of those who will put their faith in Him. Now these born again believers are under grace. Under grace, one is bound by what is known as the Law of Christ or the Law of Love...

Jesus boiled the entire law down to two essential commandments,

Matthew 22:35-40 (ESV)
35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

So the very foundation or essence of the entire OT is embodied in these two commandments:

1.) Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
2.) Love your neighbor as yourself.

Living by these two laws in all things, as the Spirit leads, fulfills the entire law. Paul put it this way:

Romans 13:8-10 (ESV)
8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” AND ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Love fulfills the law. Paul reiterated this in his letter to the Galatians,

Galatians 5:14 (ESV)
14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Love is interesting. It fulfills the whole law. Yet, the Law cannot fulfill love.

What do I mean? I'll show you...

Consider the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are what I call a "basement righteousness". They provide enough righteousness to keep one from being kicked out of church, arrested, or shot by an angry husband. And... that's about it. Let's look at them with regards to how they are not fulfilled without love...

1.) I can dedicate all my religious devotion to the God of the Bible and no other, but not really have a relationship with Him or truly "love" Him.

2.) I can choose not to make any idol and bow down to it, but not really have a relationship with God or truly love Him.

3.) I can speak reverently of the God of the Bible, but not have a relationship with Him or truly "love" Him.

4.) I can set aside one day a week for religious devotion to God, but not have a relationship with Him or truly love Him.

5.) I can honor my parents and all the benefits they have provided me, but not truly "love" them, or have a relationship with God.

6.) I can choose not to murder my neighbor, or slander him, but not truly "love him. I can choose not to murder, and not even have a relationship with God.

7.) I can choose not to commit adultery, but that doesn't mean that I truly "love" my wife. I can choose not to sleep with my neighbor's wife, but it doesn't mean that I truly "love" my neighbor.

8.) I can choose not to steal my neighbor's lawn mower, it doesn't mean that I love him.

9.) I can choose not to lie to or about my neighbor, it doesn't mean that I love him or God.

10.) I can choose not to be jealous of my neighbor's fortune and blessing, but it doesn't mean that I love him or even love God.

Please note, I can fulfill the Ten Commandments... but not have any true love for either God or neighbor. So living by the law cannot justify me or make me truly righteous. While the Ten Commandments are ethical, they do not command us to love. Nor do the Ten Commandments say anything about visiting the widow and the orphan, caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, etc.. (The essence of true religious practice.)

As you can see, the Commandments are the basic and lowest level of ethical righteousness. And honestly, any ethical religious person can fulfill the letter of these commandments in their sleep.

However, if I whole heartedly focus on loving God and my neighbor... I'll not only fulfill the very essence of the Ten Commandments through my love for others... I'll go infinitely beyond the commandments themselves.

I hope this has helped.

God bless.

Chris

[shazeep]

ok well understand that i have no desire to sway anyone's belief in the matter; be confirmed in your own mind, as Scripture says. If the NT does not flatly incorporate the Sabbath into Christianity, it cannot be rightly said that it unincorporates it, either. It is left ambiguous, like many concepts; methinks apurpose.

It seems to me that maybe Sabbath should be seen as a gift, that one may take or leave. There is no law requiring it now, and it should not become a point of contention, as with many SDAs, despite their official dogma.

Paul also said "Will i then go out, and start breaking Commandments? God forbid!"

[Aquila]

Let's say that you're driving down the highway on a cold winter's day. It's cold and snowy, but bearable. Traffic isn't too bad, this highway is well traveled and has been salted appropriately. It's you're wife's birthday and you have plans. You're running a little late because of something that came up at the office right before you had to leave. As it stands right now, you'll be just in time to meet your wife for the reservations you booked at your wife's favorite restaurant. You have a night on the town planned after this. A little dancing, movie, and then a room in a rather romantic hotel she adores. Just up ahead you see a car stalled out on the side of the highway.

If you stopped to assist, you'll surely be late. If you drove on past this stalled vehicle, it wouldn't violate any of the Ten Commandments. However, the law of love would demand that you do something to assist this motorist. Yes, love calls us to a higher standard.

What do you do?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I already showed that according to Paul the "law of the Spirit" is the "righteousness of the law" which is "fulfilled... in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit". Further you say no law was done away with yet later you say it was abolished, a clear contradiction (not to mention a plain denial of the very express command of Christ).

You assume that there is no obligation on man except what is written in the new testament. From where did you get this idea? It certainly isn't found in the new testament. I keep pointing out the error of this reason to no avail but here it is again: if your reasoning is correct, then bestiality is morally acceptable, for there is no scripture IN THE NEW TESTAMENT which says "thou shalt not have carnal relations with a beast as with a human".

Why then at the council meeting in Acts did the elders decide to lay on the Gentiles no further burden than they abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornication, and from things strangled with blood. Why were those 3 things chosen to be mentioned for the Gentiles to follow - when all 3 things were clearly prohibited in the OT? This would have been a perfect place for the elders to command the Gentiles to be sure and obey the Sabbath, but there is no record of them doing that. They emphasized 3 items from OT law keeping as essential for the Gentiles to keep, nothing more. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Furthermore, the new testament does not present the laws of God AS NEW LEGISLATION. They ASSUME the OLD TESTAMENT RECORDING of the LAWS OF GOD to be valid. Thus you will find in the new testament NO COMMAND FROM GOD to NOT MURDER, for example. The new testament condemns murder, for sure, but not because of new replacement legislation. Rather it affirms as valid the WORDS OF GOD forbidding murder with EXPLANATION AND APPLICATION of that commandment to include the thought life as well as the physical deed, as explained by YOUR TEACHER/RABBI/MASTER/LORD, Jesus Christ.

Again, see my previous answer above. Why were 3 specific laws selected from the OT for the Gentiles to follow, and no more?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Then NONE of the ten commandments are in force since then. At Calvary the law prohibiting idolatry was abolished. At Calvary the law commanding the honoring of one's parents was abolished. At Calvary the law prohibiting murder was abolished. At Calvary the law commanding the remembrance and sanctification of the sabbath was abolished. Now if a law is abolished, whatever that law prohibited is now allowed, and whatever that law commanded is no longer obligatory. Do you say idolatry and murder are still prohibited? On what basis? According to the New Testament, they are prohibited because GOD SAID SO. Where? Why, right there in Moses. The NT assumes the post-Calvary validity of the law of God as a definition of right and wrong behaviour, as a moral code, as the STANDARD and declaration of God's will for mankind. (This is so basic I am amazed it must be pointed out to a fellow Christian!)

You can cut the sarcasm E. We can discuss this without throwing stones at one another, I hope.

Again, why were 3 laws from the OT upheld by the council in Jerusalem in the book of Acts? Why not more, why not less? What significance was it that these 3 things were selected by the council as something that even Gentiles must follow? Why didn't they say the Gentiles had to keep the 10 commandments of God? Then we could have proof that the Sabbath keeping was included. But because of the 3 laws they selected... we are to keep those, and understand that the rest of the law keeping comes through the spirit of Christ indwelling us and teaching us.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The ten commandments, according to you, is "the enmity" that Christ came to do away with. Yet you seem utterly oblivious to what that REALLY and PLAINLY means! Thou shalt do no murder was "against us", so God got rid of it, right? Not. The handwriting that was against us was NOT GOD'S LAW. See this I'm running out of time: http://yrm.org/handwriting-ordinances.htm

And here: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseact...esians-215.htm

This seems rather incoherent. As for Jesus fulfilling the law, absolutely. But does that mean "he kept it so I don't need to"? His statement that he was come to fulfill it was juxtaposed against "think not that I am come to destroy the law". Yet you have him fulfilling it by destroying it, destroying it by fulfilling it, etc. But HE put the two ideas as polar opposites and said ONE of them ain't happening.

You seem to be twisting my words. The law was a schoolmaster that taught us. Now that Christ is here, His spirit indwelling us is now our teacher, not the law. The scripture I posted said that Christ abolished the law. I didn't write that, Paul did. Paul also says Christ fulfilled the law. So are those two things that Paul wrote that are contradictions? If Christ came to fulfill the law, he also abolished it, thus changing it. That is not a contradiction at all.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I really do wonder why people fight so hard arguing for lawlessness. If you love God, and God said "remember the sabbath DAY because I am the Creator and made the Sabbath for you", then how could anyone NOT call his sabbath a delight and his ways good and desirable?

I've never understood the antinomian mindset when it is found among Christians.

I am not arguing for lawlessness! How silly! I believe that the law of the Spirit in Christ Jesus is what leads me and guides me! The law of the spirit will not contradict the written word.

I think you are throwing stones at me in order to cover up the fact that you refuse to see the obvious facts that we are discussing. Even though I don't want to turn this into a rock throwing contest. Can we discuss this issue without sarcasm? I hope so.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's say that you're driving down the highway on a cold winter's day. It's cold and snowy, but bearable. Traffic isn't too bad, this highway is well traveled and has been salted appropriately. It's you're wife's birthday and you have plans. You're running a little late because of something that came up at the office right before you had to leave. As it stands right now, you'll be just in time to meet your wife for the reservations you booked at your wife's favorite restaurant. You have a night on the town planned after this. A little dancing, movie, and then a room in a rather romantic hotel she adores. Just up ahead you see a car stalled out on the side of the highway.

If you stopped to assist, you'll surely be late. If you drove on past this stalled vehicle, it wouldn't violate any of the Ten Commandments. However, the law of love would demand that you do something to assist this motorist. Yes, love calls us to a higher standard.

What do you do?

The law of the spirit will never contradict the written word. Love is the highest law there is.